Plastic Waste and Microplastics
Plastics Litigation Tracker
WA
OR
CA
NV
AZ
UT
Local Pollution Cases
Greenwashing / Consumer Protection Cases
AK
TX
FL
HI
NY
NM
MT
ID
SC
NC
PA
IL
IN
OH
MI
ME
LA
AL
MS
NJ
OK
MN
WI
CO
WY
ND
SD
NE
VA
IA
MO
AR
WV
VT
NH
MA
CT
MD
KY
TN
DE
© 2026 King & Spalding LLP
kslaw.com
About King & Spalding
Contact Us
Disclaimer
9,999
9,999
9,999
active cases
metric
settled cases
WDC
New York
BY THE NUMBERS
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Kansas
Dismissed
! Ford County v. ExxonMobil, et al. November 2024: public nuisance claim based on the defendants’ continued manufacturing and marketing plastic products despite awareness of the limitations of recycling. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Missouri
Ongoing
! Rodriguez, et al. v. ExxonMobil, et al. December 2024: antitrust, consumer protection and nuisance claim based on the defendants’ continued manufacturing and marketing plastic products despite awareness of the limitations of recycling. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Connecticut
Ongoing
EPatane v. Nestle, August 2017: Deceptive trade practices concerning representations about purity of Poland Spring’s “100% Natural Spring Water”. Read more »
EConnecticut v. Reynolds, June 2022: Deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of Hefty trash bags. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Last Updated: June 23, 2026
California
Ongoing
mGarvey v. The Campbell’s Co., April 2026: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure in Campbell’s Soup products.
mRobertson v. Sunday Riley, April 2026: deceptive marketing as to skincare products which “may contribute to microplastic-like persistence” in aquatic environment.
mSmet v. Compostic Limited, March 2026: deceptive representation as to whether Compostic cling wrap products are compostable due to the existence of microplastics.
mLewis v. Supplying Demand, October 2025: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Liquid Death aluminum cans. Read more
Stayed
mMerlo v. Water Wipes, June 2025: Deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby wipes. Read more
Dismissed
mCheslow v. S.C. Johnson, April 2025: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Ziploc plastic bagsOn July 1, S.C. Johnson moved to dismiss on the grounds that the named plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that she was injured, Ziploc bags leached plastics, and that the claims were preempted. Later that month, the suit was referred to mediation. Read more »
mMiller v. Philips North America, June 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby bottles and cups. Read more »
mMiller v. Handi-Craft Co., June 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby bottles and cups. Read more »
mDotson v. Danone, February 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Read more »
mDotson v. CG Roxane, February 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Crystal Geyser drinking water. Read more »
mBruno v. BlueTriton, January 2024; deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Arrowhead drinking water. Read more »
mBaker v. Nestle, April 2018: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Nestle drinking water. Read more »
Washington, D.C.
Ongoing
mToxin Free USA v. Costco, May 2025, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby wipes. Read more »
Stayed
mPlastic Pollution Coalition v. Just Goods, July 2025, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Just Water products, which are advertised as a more sustainable alternative to traditional plastic water bottles. Read more »
Dismissed
mPlastic Pollution Coalition v. Danone, July 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Just Water products. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
! Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Stayed
! City of Baltimore v. PepsiCo, et al. June 2024: nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers Read more »
Minnesota
Ongoing
EMinnesota v. Reynolds, June 2023, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of LDPE recycling bags. Read more »
Illinois
Dismissed
mDaly v. The Wonderful Co. LLC, January 2021, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Fiji drinking water. Read more »
mSlowinski v. BlueTriton, December 2023: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Ice Mountain drinking water. Read more »
mDaly v. Danone, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Read more »
Texas
Settled
2Waterkeeper v. Formosa Plastics, July 2017: Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Texas waterways. Read more »
South Carolina
Settled
2Waterkeeper v. Frontier Logistics, March 2020: Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Charleston Harbor. Read more »
Latest Update: In January 2019, the Court granted Nestle’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding claims regarding the term “purified water” preempted given FDA’s approval of the labeling. On January 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint but for unknown reasons, voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice only two weeks later.
Latest Update: On February 26, 2024, BlueTriton filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs: (1) did not put forth sufficient evidence of a factual nexus with the products they purchased; (2) did not allege that BlueTriton made any representations regarding the water’s presence or absence of microplastics; (3) did not plausibly plead any diminished value or injury; and (4) lacked standing.
On August 9, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, holding that the lawsuit is preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Court also held that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the failure to make a disclosure about the presence of microplastics on a molecular level.
On August 23, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. After reviewing the amended complaint, the Court held that it suffered from the same flaws as the original complaint; shortly thereafter, the plaintiff dismissed the case.
Latest Update: In June 2022, the Court denied BlueTriton’s motion to dismiss, finding that: (1) Earth Island had standing, (2) the challenged representations constituted “trade practices” under D.C. law (despite that they were on websites and social media rather than marketing or sales materials); and (3) whether the representations were misleading to a reasonable consumer when viewed in context was a question for the jury.
In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which neither company will sell the bags in Minnesota for two and a half years. Thereafter, the term “recycling bags” may not be used and companies must conspicuously state that the bags are not recyclable. The defendants will also pay a fine, develop and enforce anti-greenwashing training, and establish a review process for marketing claims.
Latest Update: On March 25, 2024, the case was removed to the Northern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction. On June 28, 2024, Danone filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; (2) the plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence of microplastics in the product they purchased; (3) use of the term “natural spring water” was not deceptive; (4) the plaintiffs did not allege reasonable reliance or injury; and (5) the plaintiffs lacked standing.
On November 5, 2024, the Northern District of Illinois granted Danone’s motion without prejudice. The Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted, reasoning that courts to address this have all held there is no FDA requirement to identify a water’s source beyond labeling it as “spring water.”
On December 6, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On February 18, 2025, the plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: On March 28, 2024, the case was removed to the Central District of California.
On April 3, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: On March 4, 2024, BlueTriton moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted; (2) the plaintiffs failed to allege mispresentations, reliance or injury, and (3) the plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court granted BlueTriton’s motion on May 6, and the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 28. On June 18, BlueTriton moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on the same grounds as its original motion. On May 6, following a hearing, the Court granted BlueTriton’s motion on the preemption grounds. The Court reasoned that any requirement to more accurately disclose the composition of the product would go beyond what the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires.
On August 23, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, however, shortly thereafter dismissed the case.
Latest Update: On April 1, 2024, the case was removed to the Central District of California. On April 25, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice for unknown reasons, noting in the dismissal that the defendant neither answered the complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.
Latest Update: On March 3, 2025, the Court granted The Wonderful Company's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, reasoning that allowing a suit of this type to proceed would open the door to enabling any purchaser of any consumable product to file a lawsuit.
On May 7, 2025, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Select a state or jurisdiction to view case information.
Latest Update: The defendants have filed joint and separate motions to dismiss.
Before the Court issued a ruling on the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the parties stipulated to a stay pending the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. B.P., et al.
Latest Update: Ford County voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit less than two months after it was filed.
Latest Update: On April 7, 2025 the United States District Court for the District of Western Missouri ordered that the case be transferred to the District of Kansas for further proceedings based on the first-filed rule.
KS
FL
GA
Latest Update: On February 28, 2025, Reynolds filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no reasonable trier of fact could find that the labeling and marketing of Hefty recycling bags is deceptive or unfair as a matter of law. A hearing on the motion is set for June 16, and trial is set to begin on December 9, 2025.
On June 16, 2025, the Court heard oral argument; during the hearing, the Court highlighted two unsettled issues, including whether a product label can constitute prima face evidence of deceptiveness, even without evidence that the label is likely to mislead consumers. The parties have submitted supplemental briefing, and the motion is still under submission by the Court.
Trial is set to begin on May 12, 2026.
Latest Update: On February 19, 2025, the Court granted Lululemon’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, reasoning that Plaintiffs’ allegations failed to tie any aspect of Lululemon’s statements to the purported price premium paid for their products. The Court did not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Florida
Dismissed
mBarrales v. Newell Brands, July 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby bottles and cups. Read more »
Latest Update: On November 20, 2024, Newell filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that no reasonable consumer would interpret “BPA-free” to mean free of polypropylene plastic, which does not contain BPA. Newell cited to an Illinois court’s dismissal of a similar case based on the reasoning that microplastics are “everywhere” and no reasonable consumer would expect a disclosure of their presence. Newell further argued that there are no factual allegations contending that the plaintiff actually used the bottles or whether her child had suffered harm from use.
On December 16, 2024, Barrales filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice before the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Georgia
Settled
2Pennenvironment, Inc. v. BVPV Styrenics, December 2023: Clean Water Act lawsuit based on unlawful discharge of plastic pellets into Ohio River. Read more »
Latest Update: In 2025, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which BVPV Styrenics will redesign its stormwater collection and treatment systems, install advanced monitoring technology, and pay approximately $2.6 million for its Clean Water Act violations, which will be funneled back into the community in an effort to combat plastic pollution.
Latest Update: In 2021, Frontier Logistics agreed to settle the case for $1 million to be used as funding for beneficial environmental projects.
Latest Update: In 2019, Formosa agreed to settle the case for $50 million, which will be funneled back into the community to fund education, research and conservation initiatives along the Texas Gulf Coast.
Ongoing
2Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. US Army Corps of Engineers, December 2021: lawsuit under Clean Water Act and other federal statutes based on authorization of operations that could result in plastics being introduced into the waterways Read more »
Latest Update: On February 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint (with 2 claims; down from 9 in the Third Amended Complaint). The plaintiffs’ only remaining claims are for violation of the Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The defendants filed an answer in April 2024.
Washington
Latest Update: On October 10, 2024, the plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice. The parties had not yet briefed any motions on the merits.
Latest Update: On October 15, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. On November 12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was set for February 28, 2025 but reset to a later date.
On April 29, 2025, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud-based consumer protection claims with leave to amend, reasoning that—as to the alleged affirmative misrepresentations—the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to sufficiently plead reliance, and—as to the alleged fraudulent omissions—the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable safety hazard and/or a duty to disclose and actual knowledge. The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend for similar reasons.
Rather than file an amended complaint, on May 20, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
Latest Update: On February 20, 2025, the Court granted in part Philips’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The Court ruled that Philips’ “BPA free” label is not misleading because it only promises the absence of BPA, not that the products are free from all plastic byproducts. While dismissing several claims, the Court denied the motion as to the plaintiffs’ claim that Philips failed to warn consumers about the potential risks of microplastic exposure. On March 19, Philips moved for interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order on its motion to dismiss.
On March 13, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On March 27, Philips filed its answer.
On March 19, 2025, Philips filed a motion to certify the Court’s order on its motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. On April 28, the Court denied Philips’ motion, and on May 27, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case.
Latest Update: On January 6, 2025, Exxon filed a defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta based on its “repeatedly and publicly attacking ExxonMobil with false accusations of being a ‘liar’ and declarations that advanced recycling is a ‘myth’ and a ‘sham.’”
Following service of the Complaint, the Court granted an extension of time to answer the complaint until April 25, 2025.
Latest Update: The parties completed briefing on class certification on September 3, 2025. The court has not issued an order on class certification, as of December 2, 2025.
Pennsylvania
Latest Update: On October 27, 2025, Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Latest Update: On March 18, the Court denied Danone’s motion to dismiss finding that (1) the claims are not preempted by federal law, and (2) the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the phrase “natural spring water” could be deceptive given the presence of microplastics.
On August 19, 2025, the parties informed the Court that they reached a settlement and the case was thereafter dismissed.
Latest Update: On October 1, Just Goods filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Just Goods did not file a motion to dismiss.
On March 6, 2026 the Court issued an order granting a joint motion to stay pending resolution efforts.
Latest Update: On August 19, following mediation, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
Latest Update: On September 17, before the Court ruled on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated to stay the case pending resolution efforts.
Consumer Protection Cases
m
On February 19, 2025, the Court granted Lululemon’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, reasoning that Plaintiffs’ allegations failed to tie any aspect of Lululemon’s statements to the purported price premium paid for their products. The Court did not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Latest Update: On October 27, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would understand the term “plastic free” to mean that they do not include trace levels of microplastics.
On February 20, 2026, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in an oral ruling. The reasoning for the denial is not publicly available.
Settled
mGyani v. Lululemon USA Inc., July 2024, Deceptive representation about the release of microplastics into the environment from Lululemon products. Read more »
Latest Update: On July 28, 2025 NicePak and Costco filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Neither party filed a motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.
Ongoing
mRosewood v. Costco, March 2025: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from any Costco baby wipe product and Nice-Pak products. Read more »
Dismissed
mMoore v. BlueTriton, March 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Poland Spring drinking water. Read more »
On July 28, 2025 NicePak and Costco filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Neither party filed a motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.
Latest Update: On January 5, 2026, Supplying Demand filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the challenged misrepresentations, and because they are either puffery and/or truthful. Before Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint shortly thereafter, which Supplying Demand has not yet filed a response to.